54 There is Hope! Alan introduces Donald Hoffman

Olaso. So yesterday afternoon I read the pointing out instructions from Padmasambhava, and he made some extraordinary claims there in his preface to the pointing out instructions. Saying these are pointing to a dimension of reality that’s called by a wide variety of names including Atman, but the middle way view, emptiness, tathagatagarbha, alya, perfection of wisdom, all pointing to that. All pointing to that. And then we saw there were two phases of the pointing out instructions where he would simply say, kind of challenge you in terms of what do you mean? What do you mean? And just observe your mind. Just do it. Just do it, right. So there was a whole sequence there which is observe, observe very clearly, look. But the second phase of his pointing out instructions was he would pose a question, or pose a hypothesis really, why not call it that? And say is it, is it that so or not? Is it that way or not? Observe your mind.

[01:13:07] So, the first part one can say is shamatha, observe your mind. Well, look. That’s shamatha, just look, shamatha. But when you pose a question and then you’re being asked to report, is it that way or not? Well then clearly you’ve just stepped over into vipashyana. So pointing out instructions, that he gave with, in such an inviting way because you remember one of the most remarkable names he gave for what he’s pointing out was, ordinary consciousness. So not something of the future, not something you’ll achieve one day, after you’ve achieved shamatha, etc. etc. No, ordinary consciousness, the one you’re experiencing right now, just look at that. You know. Like that’s sufficient, what else are you going to look at? You can’t say, I don’t like mine I’m going to look at a better one. (laughter) That’s it you know. You’ve got to look at what you’ve got. Right? But it raises a very very interesting questions to my mind. And that is when you do so, what do you see? How deeply do you penetrate? Do you simply see the luminous and cognizant aspect of consciousness? Which is very good, by means of which you then identify the relative nature of consciousness. Did you look so deeply that you look right through your mind, your psyche, and penetrated right to the substrate consciousness, because it’s right there, right where you’re looking. It is. Could you penetrate that deeply? Could you, the emptiness of your own mind, the emptiness of your own awareness that’s right there too. That’s not some place else. So you’re looking right where the emptiness of your own awareness is. Did you realize the emptiness of your own awareness? And of course right where all of this is, is rigpa, primordial consciousness. Did you identify rigpa?

[03:00:09] So the instructions are just wonderfully simple and complete actually, pointing out instructions. Can you look once, can you look once and is that sufficient? And most of us would say well no you have to look multiple times, but then why? I mean if all of these, your consciousness, your substrate consciousness, the emptiness of your consciousness, rigpa, if they’re all there right now, why not just look and say oh good I’m a vidyadhara, no I think no I’m a Buddha, thank you, that was a very nice trip. Vidi, vici, Veni, vidi, vici. I came I saw I conquered. Buhm buhm buhm, I’m a conqueror. You know, I’m a Buddha. That would be very nice. It doesn’t work that way for most people. Those are called the simultaneous ones, remember? They hear the teaching, buhm they gain the realization. So if you’re one of those people you can leave now. (laughter) Because you’ll just embarrass me you know, kind of pretending to listen to me and just you know. Okay you’ve not left. (laughter)

[04:01:04] What are the obscurations? When we look, why do we not see it? It’s a serious question, a reasonable question. If rigpa’s there right where you are and you’re looking right at it, if you don’t see it, if you’re not a vidyadhara right there, if you don’t, if you don’t realize right there, that your own mind is dharmakaya. Dharmakaya realizing its own nature as dharmakaya. Why not? It’s right there. And of course there are things in the way. They’re called obscurations. So let’s run through them briefly. Conative obscurations, conative as in desire. You might think I don’t want to. (Alan chuckles) I don’t want to. You said to observe my mind. Quit telling me what to do. (continues chuckling) I’m busy. I’m busy, I’m trying to make money, I’m trying to get ahead, I’m trying to succeed, make something of myself. Why should I look at my mind? I don’t see any prophet in that, it will be boring. I don’t need to. I don’t want to. I don’t see any point. So, or I’ll check, yeah that was it, no that wasn’t even interesting, I’m finished. And move right on. So that’s a big obscuration. If you have no interest, no aspiration, and not just to check it out for five seconds but for you know for like twelve hours a day for a year, or five, or ten. If you don’t have the aspiration that’s not going to happen, all right? So nobody just kind of stumbles into becoming a vidyadhara. There has to be great aspiration. We’ve seen the hairs hippolating, what was that word again, I can’t remember, hairs standing on end, tears flowing in your eyes, incredible passion, asking hundreds of times for blessings and so forth. Those are the people who gain really profound realization, a conative passion. But if that’s not there, if there’s no renunciation, no bodhichitta, then it’s not going to happen. You can just read those pointing out instructions all you like, never going to happen. No renunciation, forget about it, you’ll be much too busy. So that would be the first obscuration.

[05:57:00] The second one, is kind of like the duh kind of obscuration. And that is you try to do that and the mind is just like a beehive swarming with bees of noise, of obsessive compulsive ideation. You try and look at your mind and you just have all these flies in your face, you know Memories, thoughts, emotions, blah, blah, blah, blah blah. And it’s kind of like kaaah, this is, I don’t like doing this. You know because you just can’t do it. Your mind is so derailed three seconds here, two seconds there, spin off, spin off, spin off. So attentional obscurations. They’re big, they’re enormous. That’s why, of course that’s why we have first of all motivation, motivation, motivation, but refuge, bodhichitta. And then we go right to developing attentional skills, shamatha. But even if your attention is, let’s say is reasonably good. Even if you have a real interest. And even if your attention skills are rather refined, is that any guarantee that you’ll really gain insight when you’re looking? That you will not only look but you will see? You’ll not only see, but you’ll have insight which is in Tibetan - Lagtong special seeing. Some special, some extraordinary seeing.

[07:13:09] And it’s quite clear there’s another whole layer of obscuration. And it’s cognitive. Cognitive. This is ignorance, it’s delusion. And so in terms of ignorance hyphen delusion, the root mental affliction, we have two types. Conate, we are born with it. As sentient beings we’re born with a certain whole dimension of grasping, reifying to the self, reifying other phenomena, reifying other people, we can’t blame anybody on it, we can’t blame DNA or genetics or parents or culture or materialists or anything else, born with it, and that’s conate, right. And even though and the extraordinary hypothesis and it’s been demonstrated to be true many times is that even though it’s conate, even though we’re born with it, it’s not hard wired. It’s not intrinsic, it’s not indelible, if it were then dharma would kind of like, it would be reduced to a therapy, that there’d be nothing more to it than try to get along in samsara and not be beat up too much. But no, this is not as I said, not just simply therapy and if you don’t like the warfare metaphor, and I understand why you might not, well this is going for a complete healing. How about that one? It’s a softer image. A total irreversible complete healing and illumination of the mind, alright? So then we have the conate ones.

[08:29:06] But then we have [Tibetan] Kun Dag Ma-rigpa , which I translate as - speculative. Speculative ignorance, and this is learned, it’s acquired ignorance, it’s acquired ignorance. And that is imagine a person, I would say just on the whole, here’s a great big generalization which I’ll stand by, the belief system of scientific materialism consists uniformly of acquired delusion. Nobody’s born with it. Nobody’s born with it, that’s not conate, but you get educated, you get introduced to it, especially you’re told that this is indivisible from science, if you love science then you have to go with the belief system of scientific materialism. There was a great marketer for that. He was a good biologist but an incredibly good propagandist and marketer, Thomas Huxley, Darwin’s bulldog. And had it not been for him the whole course of science for the last 150 years might have turned out very well. But he made sure starting in England spreading to America and then the rest of the world, he made sure he was incredibly effective. One man could bring about such enormous results. He made sure and first in Great Britain, then the United States, then went global, especially in communist countries. Marx attended his lectures and loved them. He had been to six lectures of his and loved him. And that is that the only way you can do science, teach science, understand science is within the context of scientific materialism. He did that almost single handedly , it was an amazing propaganda feat He died deeply depressed, but he certainly spread his virus before he died. So cognitive. Back in the 1860’s there was a very brilliant German scientist, he was very much a polymath. He worked in biology, and physics, chemistry, Hermann von Herholz. In the 1860’s he formalized what was called the, the, that is mathematically formalized the principle, the conservation of energy. It’s a simple thing, I’m not going to go into it, we have some really good stuff to deal with this morning, but he did something very important that had an enormous impact. This is in the 1860”s this is just when Darwin’s Theory of Evolution was taking off, really getting popular with Thomas Huxley’s enormous help. But the closure principle says that all of the energy in the universe is conserved. Which means you never get anything new and you never lose anything, so there we are. But this means and the closure principle is, this means here’s the enormous implication of this. 19th century classic physics that anything that has causal efficacy in the universe is itself physical. If there is anything that is not physical, it cannot possibly have any impact, have any causal efficacy whatsoever in the real physical universe because that would imply adding new energy. Getting something from nothing. Cannot happen, never happens, so the only things that have any causal efficacy in the entire universe are themselves physical. So god, if god still exists that’s fine but you’re a tourist, you’re a bystander, you’re just an observer, but you can’t do anything god, you’re, now this is deism. It’s what Einstein believed in and a number of others as well.

[11:49:06] But it’s not only God that becomes literally irrelevant because he simply cannot intervene unless God is made of molecules which actually nobody believes as far as I know, unless you’re a pantheist I suppose. But it also means your mind. One of two implications immediately follows, necessarily follows if you take this and many many people do. Either your mind is physical which means of course it’s got to be the brain or some specific type of brain function. In which case the only way to study it authentically, insightfully, is brain science, and study its effect - behavior, physical physical. That’s the only way. So if mind is physical then it can have causal efficacy. It’s physical, conservation principle is maintained. But then this means of course you’re a robot. Because your brain operates entirely according to laws of physics, chemistry, biology which are amoral, mindless and you’re a robot. There’s no such thing as will, it’s just brain activity. And so notion of will, decision, choice, responsibility, out the window you’re a robot. It’s the inevitable conclusion. If your mind is simply your brain or brain activity. And there’s nothing influencing it, that’s not physical right.

[13:08] On the other hand if your mind is not physical, then it’s an epiphenomenon and it’s along for the ride, but it has no causal efficacy of its own, because it’s non physical. It cannot possibly influence the brain in any way. So it may be non physical but then it’s non measurable, but it also has no impact, it has no causal efficacy. So once again, oh, you’re a robot because your mind is just fluff. Your mind is just like a vapor going along for the ride but if all the activity, all the engine is from the brain up. So one modern very well known neuroscientist who has studied meditation a lot said years ago, the only way to understand meditation is by understanding its underlying neural mechanisms. Okay. So the meditators don’t really know what meditation is about, because they don’t know anything about underlying neural mechanisms. Fine tell me a geshe, show me a yogi that can start, give you a good discourse on the hippocampus. Good luck with that. (laughter) So the meditators actually are clueless really about what is going on in meditation because they don’t know what’s doing it. They’re seeing the fluff, they’re seeing the epiphenomenal experiences. But what’s really doing it is the brain. And so you know, move over meditators, brain scientists come in, we’ll take over now. Because we’ll actually study now what’s really going on.

[14:29] So you can be either an old robot or a robot but you can have your choice. No, actually you can’t, because you don’t have any choices. (laughter) Either way you have no choices. It’s either brain chemistry or it’s it’s brain chemistry, it’s brain chemistry either way. Your mind either doesn’t exist or it’s ineffectual, then who cares. It’s kind of like a semantic difference. So if you have that view and many many, many many mind scientists do, in fact among the scientific community from one type of discipline to another those, a poll was done recently the most materialistic group of scientists among all the fields are cognitive scientists. The most materialistic. It’s quite interesting because among all the fields of science those are the ones who know the least about matter. It’s quite remarkable. Because they don’t study 20th century physics and hardly any of them understand it. Whereas some of the least materialistic are the physicists like Thomas Hertog, I quoted extensively. Boy that was really,really really really not materialistic. There he is a protege of Stephen Hawking. He did his PhD under Stephen Hawking at Cambridge. That’s quite remarkable. So if you look at the history of science we see, let’s say Galileo, in science, let’s say physics, was in its infancy and it was a brilliant birth. Koeppler, Galileo. And then with Newton it was in its childhood, a really healthy child, right. We get to late 19th century where classical mechanics is really come into its fullness and people of the stature of Lord Kelvin said we’re pretty much finished, we now understand the nature of the universe, there’s not much more to be done. Physics at that time was like a teenager. Mom, Dad you don’t know anything. (laughter) I know everything. You don’t know anything and neither does Grandpa, he’s an old fogey. None of you old people do, I know everything. Is adolescent. Really adolescent. And now we find with Thomas Hertog and Stephen Hawking and Anton Zeilinger, Sean Wheeler, Andre Linde, Paul Davies, we’re seeing them casting off materialism and coming into adulthood. It’s quite impressive, right, adulthood.

[16:48] Meanwhile the cognitive sciences are still in infancy. And pretending as if they understand consciousness. When frankly they don’t have a clue. But they’re pretending as if what they don’t understand doesn’t matter. Until this one who breaks the mold. And that’s what I want to share with you this morning. He’s mainstream, otherwise he would not be so interesting if you’re just kind like an outsider like me. Not so interesting. But full professor, cognitive scientist at the University of California Irvine. Got his PhD at MIT, doesn’t get any better. His name is Donald Hoffman and I just read an interview of him. But I want to proceed with this just briefly with a nice juicy quote. From the Foolish Dharma of an Idiot Clothed in Mud and Feathers where Dudjom Lingpa as he does in all of his treatises says - before you set out on the path, whether it’s shamatha, whether it’s exploring the mind and so forth there’s something you need to get straight first of all, right. Among body speech and mind you have to determine, before you launch, you need to get straight on this one, otherwise you’re going to be screwed from the beginning. Among body speech and mind, which one is primary? If you don’t know the right answer or you’ve got the wrong answer you may as well stay home. That’s fine, have a nice day. But this path is just, you’re not going to get anywhere. You have to know, not by being dogmatic, you have to investigate it. Which is primary? And here’s a statement from the Foolish Dharma of an Idiot Clothed in Mud and Feathers, it was a prophecy that Dudjom Lingpa received from a little boy who appeared in his dream. And the little boy told him, the body is like a paper bag blown by the wind. That body includes your brain, of course. Your brain is like a paper bag blown by the wind. Speech is like the sound of air passing through a pipe. Come and gone, right? The mind is the creator of both samsara and nirvana. Among these three identify which is primary. If you still think the body’s primary, that’s fine. But this, this path is just not open to you at all, right.

[19:03] And so it was physics - Hermann Von Helmholz, the great triumphs from Newtonian mechanics, classical physics that brought the, that enslaved modern cognitive science from the very beginning, it began in about 1875 or so. Right in the heyday of the adolescence of physics when there was so much, may I say - adolescent pomposity. We’re pretty much finished here. There’s no reason to go into physics, you’ll just be picking up the breadcrumbs that you know, that slipped off the table. Go into some other field but we’re done here. This was of course just years before relativity theory, quantum mechanics the whole revolution of 20th century physics. But there it was this mechanistic mind killing, dehumanizing, world view of scientific materialism, that was dominant in western academia, when the mind sciences arose at the time of William James and so forth. And so it was strapped from the beginning. I would say to be a little bit tough, Thomas Hertog set the mind sciences back by 150 years. Because he ensured that if they stepped outside of scientific materialism they’ll be excommunicated. And so it’s taken a long time but finally here’s the first one I’ve seen of mainstream, very bright, highly educated researcher in the cognitive sciences doing cutting edge research, who’s addressed this question - body speech and mind or let’s make it simple brain and mind, let’s make it simple matter and mind, which is primary? So here he is professor of cognitive science and this is an interview and the name of the interview was, The Case Against Reality. And reality as you’ll see turns out to be true existence. Ready? And you of course, you’ll have the whole interview because it will be on the website. But I read this and it really gave me hope. Because I’ve been waiting for a mainstream cognitive scientist to show some real appreciation of 20th century physics, in which they don’t get any training at all. How would they appreciate it, if they never study it? They stop at 19th century physics and figure, we’re done. And whatever happened in 20th century physics - not relevant, , why would it be relevant, you know? They consider what they don’t understand to be irrelevant. Which is not a sign of science.

[21:22] Here’s what Donald Hoffman, ok, breath of fresh air. The central lessons of quantum physics, here’s a cognitive scientist now talking about quantum physics, Hallelujah! The central lesson of quantum physics is clear, there are no public objects sitting out there in some pre existing space. Boom (laughter) As the physicist John Wheeler OH, pitter pat goes my heart, you’re quoting John Wheeler, Hallelujah, oh I just burst with happiness. Okay what did he say, what did he say? As the physicist John Wheeler put it, useful as it is under ordinary circumstances to say that the world exists out there in quotes “independent of us” that view can no longer be upheld. (inhales sharply, exhales with a sigh) Ahhhh! [laughter] Now Donald Hoffman’s done his own research. He’s not just piggybacking on the physicists you know like a cheerleader. He’s doing a lot more than just applauding them. He’s done some remarkable research himself on evolution and just evolutionary processes and how that has to do with knowing reality. And he’s developed his own theories, a mathematical theory and he comments, everything here is a direct quote. He says the mathematical physicist Chetan Prakash proved a theory that I devised, that says according to evolution by natural selection, an organism that sees reality as it is, will never be more fit than an organism of equal complexity that sees none of reality, but is just tuned to fitness. Never. Do I need to read that again? Yeah it’s very dense. I know the background because he gave this, was an interview, he gave a TedTalk on this which is really outstanding. But this is, he fleshes it out more. His theory which is now proven mathematically, and it’s truly a mathematical theory, and it can be tested empirically, and there we are, according here’s his theory, now tested proven mathematically, according to evolution by natural selection, just survival of the fittest, adaptation all about survival and procreation. That’s your program, survive and procreate. That’s it, that’s what all of evolution is about. According to evolution by natural selection an organism that sees reality as it is you’ve got two types of organism. One type of organism sees reality as it is, another type of organism is programmed entirely just to survive, having nothing to do with knowing reality as it is. Okay, so you have these two options. It’s a mathematical division, right. An organism that sees reality as it is will never be more fit than an organism of equal complexity that sees none of reality but is just tuned to fitness. Never.

And that is the whole course of natural selection including genetic mutation and so forth has really nothing to do with organisms adapting, evolving, to see reality more and more clearly. It’s an independent variable. It has nothing to do with that. Evolution as currently understood, and this man is right on the cutting edge of the research, said evolution has nothing to do about seeing reality as it is, it has only to do with surviving and procreating and that has nothing to do with seeing reality as it is, right. And so if there are two organisms and one is more fit to survive and the other one has deeper insight into reality, the latter one will not survive. Or will have less chance of surviving than the one that is just dog eat dog and this is you know, very well primed to survive. So this is very interesting right there. Because if the neo darwinists, that’s what they’re called, people who are absolutely following Darwin and they simply augment that with genetics and neuroscience and then say- now we’ve told the whole story. Evolution, genetics, neuroscience that tells you everything you need to know about human existence, human nature, human mind and so forth. It’s all physical, and that’s all there is to it. Many many people like that, right. And all the skills we have, all the abilities we have, our motions and so forth, all of this came through natural selection. If that’s then it turns out that science has undermined its own credibility. Because the whole course of natural selection which gave rise to scientists has nothing to do with knowing reality as it is. So there’s no reason to believe that science is accurate, since we did not evolve to know reality as it is, we evolved to make babies and survive. So science is irrelevant. Except insofar as it helps us to survive and procreate. But we did not evolve to know reality as it is, if evolution is the whole story.

[26:27] If scientists, if the scientific community is to maintain its integrity following this, and you know, taking into account this is a mathematical theorem, then you would have to posit a separate variable saying - in addition to natural selection there’s something else going on that gives us a drive to know reality as it is. And it has nothing to do with evolution and that’s where our credibility stands. In other words the credibility of science stands outside of science. It’s like Goethal’s theorem, there are truths in any system that cannot be proven within the context of that system. It’s a rough paraphrase, but it’s not too bad. Now how does that relate to 20th century science? If we go back to Helmholtz and Darwin and James Clerk Maxwell and Faraday, let alone going back earlier in the 19th century and earlier, scientists had very little prestige. You had much more prestige if you’re a theologian or business person. Theologian will lead you to God. Business person lots of money. But the scientist didn’t have much prestige, didn’t have much money, science wasn’t expensive. Darwin was all self funded. His whole voyage on the Darwin and so forth, he paid for it, right. He was from a pretty wealthy family. And the other ones, James Clerk Maxwell, the greatest physicist after Newton, he was a theoretical physicist, he like Einstein needed a pad and a pencil, right. Get to the 20th century, especially after the first world war and then especially after the second world war, and science is up to its eyeballs in money. You cannot do good 20th century science without lots of funding. Not possible, I mean, okay theoretical physicists once here or there,. they’re like stars in the daytime, everybody else needs lots of money. It was three and a half million dollars so far for the shamatha project. 850,000 dollars for the research and CEBT, cultivating emotional balance, those are two minnows in the pond, right. You can’t do good science which means you cannot get a reputation, you cannot make your way in the scientific community without a lot of money coming in. And then how do you establish yourself to get a reputation? And then get influence, power, wealth, and prestige. That’s how you really succeed in science. All those are non scientific influences. And so really one can say, to be a bit tough, I’m willing to do that, you’ve noticed. [laughter] . 20th century science is now really driven by evolution rather, I won’t say rather than, but in fierce competition with the aspiration to know truth.. If you really want to make your way ahead as a scientist look where the money is. Don’t look where your passion is, there may be no money there. Which means you won’t get any research done. Which means you won’t publish, which means you won’t get tenure, which means you’re going to be driving a taxi. If you want to be successful, go where the money is. If you want to be successful, find out who is really influential. If you want to be successful, find out who has status and get in their current. Which means that that whole, all of that has nothing to do with reality. Knowing reality has nothing whatsoever to do with, it has everything to do with survival and procreation. Surviving with the academia and procreating a lot of post grads and post docs. (laughter) And procreating a lot of papers. 20th century was a mixed blessing.

[30:05] The idea that what we’re doing is measuring publicly accessible objects, the idea that objectivity results from the fact that you and I can measure the same object in the exact same situation and get the same results, it’s very clear from quantum mechanics, that that idea has to go. Physics tells us that there are no public, physical objects, out there independently of anybody’s perspective. Not there. Then the interviewer, a man named Gefter asked or made the comment - it doesn’t seem like many people in neuroscience or philosophy of mind are thinking about fundamental physics Never a truer word was said. Do you think that’s been a stumbling block for those trying to understand consciousness? (laughter) Yes, I did pay him a thousand dollars to ask that question. (continued laughter) I wish. No he did it all for free, I’m so glad, you know. And Hoffman responds, I think it has been not only are they ignoring the progress in fundamental physics, they’re often explicit about it. They’ll say openly that quantum physics is not relevant to the aspects of brain function that are causally involved in consciousness. They are certain that it’s got to be classical properties of neural activity which exist independent of any observers, spiking rates, connection strengths, and synapses, perhaps dynamical properties as well, these are all very classical notions under Newtonian physics where time is absolute and objects exist absolutely. Then neuroscientists are mystified as to why they don’t make progress. (laughter) And they really have made no progress in 135 years. Regarding the actual nature of consciousness, the origins of consciousness, how does the mind and body interact, what are the potentials of consciousness, what’s its role in nature, how does it originate in evolution, how did it, nada, nada nada[“nada” is a portuguese word which means nothing] nothing no progress, they’re mystified as to why they don’t make progress. Gee go figure, who would have ever thought this out? [laughter]

They don’t avail themselves of the incredible insights and breakthroughs that physics has made. Those insights are out there for us to use. And yet in my field he’s a cognitive scientist, says, we’ll stick with Newton, thank you. We’ll stay 300 years behind in our physics. (Alan sharply inhales, retreatants laugh) Now I’m the cheerleader. And he adds, I’m emphasizing the larger lesson of quantum mechanics, neurons, brain, space these are just symbols we use, they’re not real. It’s not that there’s a classical brain that does some quantum magic, it’s that there is no brain. (more laughter) Padmasambhava says again and again in kind of an ontological shock therapy, he said phenomena, [Tibetan phrase] phenomena while non existent, yet appear. The brain, while not existent does appear, of course. But physical classical, classical objects, he chooses his words so carefully, I love it. Classical objects including brains, inherently existent brains don’t exist. So this is a far more radical claim about the nature of reality and does not involve the brain pulling off some tricky quantum computation. So even Penrose, a brilliant mathematician, hasn’t taken it far enough, but most of us, you know, we’re born realists. Good that’s conate. We’re born metaphysical realists, that’s true, but we’re not born materialists. You have to learn that stupidity. And he’s just unlearned it. I think he deserves the Nobel Prize for this, really. You broke out of the mold of 135 years of bogged down in the mud of materialism, congratulations!

[34:17] He said we’re born physicalists, I’d have to debate on that, but you know, if you’re born in high school when you first start learning brain science, biology and so forth, if that’s when you’re born, or junior high school, or school when you just start learning science, if you consider that’s when you’re born not in your mother’s womb, from your mother’s womb, but when you first start going to school, if that’s when you’re born - as somebody who’s educated, yeah. If you’re in the sciences, you are indoctrinated from the very beginning as Thomas Huxley demanded and enforced. You will be born and raised as a physicalist. You will be screwed from birth.

This is a really really hard one to let go of. And I know very good scientists, outstanding people in many cases very ethical people. All of their education and especially in the mind sciences, all of their education has been absolutely saturated by the beliefs of scientific materialism. So saturated that they can’t even see them. Because it’s in the water they drink. And they find it almost impossible to doubt it. But he regards himself, he says as a conscious realist. I’m postulating conscious experiences as ontological primitives and that is they’re as fundamental as you get, not derivative of brain or matter or anything else. It’s like Andre Linde you remember? Space, time, matter, energy, consciousness, right down there in the bedrock foundations of reality. I’m counting conscious experiences as ontological primitives, the most basic ingredients of the world. I’m claiming that experiences are the real coin of the realm. The experiences of everyday life, my real feeling of a headache, my real taste of chocolate, (laughter) that really is the ultimate nature of reality. That’s the first step. He’s just identified between mind and matter, which is primary. Mind is, consciousness is primary. Matter, brain don’t even exist except as symbols. It’s John Wheeler, its from bits. All of the things we regard as objects out there, they’re all derivative of the information we have about them. And there’s no information without someone who is informed.

[36:54] But now the next step, and this brings us to a meditation, we’ll go a little bit late today. But not much, not a whole lot. That’s the first point. But then if we go back to Dudjom Lingpa and it seems like his writings were made for the 21st century. He wrote them in the 19th. He wrote this stuff down during the heyday of mind dumbing, mind numbing, mind eradicating, scientific materialism. Vajra Essence came out right there during the time of Helmholtz, right during the time of Darwin. Right during the time of Thomas Huxley. Right where they were dumbing down all of western civilization, with this brainwashing. That the only things that exist are, you know, the physical. Here’s Dudjom Lingpa coming out with these revelations. And he’s saying these are for the future. That’s what the Vajra Essence said. This is for the future. This will flourish in the cities of the west, when the time comes. But boy if his teachings had come out, come to Europe in the 19th century, they would have been squashed like a cigarette butt. Boy what nonsense is this. We already know the nature of reality. You Tibetan hillbillies, what do you know. But the next step, once you’ve come to that remember this. This is, if you’re interested in a strategy, here’s a strategy. The next point is Okay this mind is the all creating sovereign remember? This mind is the creator of samsara and nirvana. Right? Good. Does the mind truly exist? Or is it mind just one more symbol? One more name having only a nominal status. That which creates all of samsara and nirvana, is that real? If it’s real then it must really originate from some place. It must be really located some place. And it must really go some place. Where? Where? Where? Nada. Nada. Nada. Now you’re ready to roll. So he pulls you out of, this is the Dudjom Lingpa strategy, he pulls you out of materialism like in a detox center, and Donald Hoffman got there, I really don’t think he has any exposure whatsoever to any Eastern thought or Buddhism. He just did it with straight science. Really really good science including hard core heavy duty mathematics. And those in evolution theory, artificial intelligence, computer science, cognitive theory he got MIT version, he got, you know, he got the best of the best in those regards. But once you’ve identified the mind as primary, he said there it is - ontological primitive, relative to which matter, brain, real matter, brains and so forth do not exist. Then he’s moved from materialism, in one like superman, in one single leap, he goes from materialism to chittamatra. Mind only, where the only thing that is real is mind and everything else doesn’t exist, except as a symbol to the mind, right. But that’s not enough for Dzogchen.

[40:06] Then you need to take that incisive razor of your intelligence and probe in right in on the nature of the sovereign. The all creating sovereign. That which creates all of samsara and nirvana, and you must know, does it inherently exist or not? Is it real or is it not? Is it any more real than a rainbow, an elementary particle or a galaxy? And when you have insight into that, okay now you’re ready, you’ve been through your basic boot camp. You’re ready to head out on the road. Okay. Whew. Let’s have one session. It will be guided. (sounds of retreatants settling for meditation)

[40:58] Meditation bell rings - three times.

[41:51] With a passionate yearning to know reality as it is in order to be free, in order to free all beings, then gently settle body, speech and mind in the natural state and calm the turbulence of the conceptual mind for a little while with mindfulness of breathing. Letting off all that excess energy, the excitation, the turbulence, with every out breath releasing all the way through to the end.

[45:14] Come to that still point where your awareness simply comes to rest, loose, relaxed, free of grasping, and therefore still and naturally bright and clear. Let your eyes be gently open, evenly rest your awareness in the space in front of you, without meditating on anything, without doing anything, simply rest in the present moment.

[46:51] And rest in your most unmediated knowledge, your most intimate knowledge of which you can be utterly certain, and that is of course your knowledge of being aware, of being conscious. Rest in that knowing of being conscious. Observe consciousness. Identify consciousness.

[48:43] Now for a little while let’s initiate the oscillation of intensifying your awareness of awareness itself, as you single pointedly concentrate in upon that experience while withdrawing from all appearances to the mind. And then relaxing deeply, releasing, releasing, loosening up, but without spacing out, gently as if holding a thread, sustain the flow of awareness of awareness as you release your awareness into space. Then when you’re ready, when you’ve relaxed a bit, make the decision if you will, choose to arouse, focus, invert your awareness right in upon itself, knowing it nakedly release again, setting the rhythm of your own choice.

[51:21] As you invert your awareness not only observe consciousness but identify it, what are its salient characteristics? By what qualities do you identify it?

[53:05] And now probe more deeply. Go across the threshold, over into a bit of vipashyana with a question. You’ve presumably made the decision to engage in this practice to invert and release your awareness. You’ve made the decision what the rhythm would be, how long the arousal and release. So now as you invert your awareness, invert it deeply, right into your experience of being the one who is the agent. The one who is doing the meditation, the one who made the decision, the one who’s carrying out the decision of inverting and releasing awareness. I didn’t do that to you, I just gave a suggestion. You made the decision. You enacted, you continue to enact it as you arouse and release. Invert your awareness now not just upon consciousness, but upon your experience of being the one who is doing this, meditating, oscillating, focusing, releasing. But don’t go for the easy answer. Don’t invert your awareness in upon your experience of being the agent and then simply report what you didn’t see. Too easy. Be prepared to report not what you didn’t see, but what you did see. What comes to mind? When you invert your awareness in upon yourself, call it yourself, call it your mind, that which is the agent. The subject in here that is controlling the attention, performing the meditation, what comes to mind when you invert in upon your experience of being the agent, attend closely, see what you see, identify what you see, and then relax, release and again invert, seeing what you do see and relaxing again. Continue the oscillation now but in this deeper ontological probe into the very nature of the agent who performs the meditation and everything else you do.

[57:13] And when you identify what comes to mind, when you seek to observe yourself, your experience of being a self, the agent. When you identify what comes to mind, then you may ask, is that me? Is that the agent? Am I looking at the agent? Or is this a representation of the agent? An image of the agent? Or is it not? Examine closely. Until you come to a decisive insight or understanding. See that your breathing flows unimpededly, effortlessly, as if you were deep asleep. Body and mind at ease.

[1:04:58] Meditation ends bell rings three times.

[1:05:26] Olaso. So you may recall a quote that I just paraphrased when I was speaking here, but then I sought it out. I found the precise quote by Einstein quoted by Heisenberg, and I’ll just paraphrase it again but Einstein said it is in fact the theory that determines what we can observe, remember that one? It’s really potent, really really potent. So this is why in Buddhism it’s so widely stated among really knowledgeable scholars that there is a sequence of hearing, thinking and then meditation. Now you may have preparation, which doesn’t have to do with any particular worldview like shamatha. You can be Christian, Agnostic if you have sufficient motivation, good ethics and so forth you don’t have to believe in this system you don’t have to be theist or a polytheist or a non theist or anything like that. But once you’ve made your mind a suitable vessel then what can you observe? What can you observe? And what can you not observe because of the beliefs you already have? So when John Searle says that introspection is impossible, you know, well clearly, if he’s taking himself seriously, his theory is preventing him from exercising an ability with which he was born. He can’t see it because a theory tells him that shouldn’t exist, right. And one can easily imagine I’m sure this happens a lot, people who are a very committed materialist saying - oh being introduced to Dzogchen, you know some of the very popular wonderful Dzogchen teachers are very happy to invite, anybody come, whoever they are, Christian, materialists, whatever and they get pointing out instructions. You can easily imagine materialists saying - oh I love this. I don’t have to worry about reincarnation and all that mumbo jumbo, I can just just rest here, whoa isn’t this nice. Very very good. It’s so interesting to observe the brain’s functioning as consciousness. What an amazing thing the brain is, you know Because that’s what I was observing. I was observing the subjective experience of complex interactions of neurons. Boy I need to get back to the lab. [laughter] So I know what’s really going on, you know.

[1:07:35] So what you can observe is largely determined by what you believe and don’t believe. And of course any non belief implies a belief that’s there instead. So once you’ve prepared the mind with shamatha then Dudjom Lingpa’s strategy, because again that’s what it is, will be introduced to the view of middle way. Of emptiness, and dependent arising, introduced to the view and then you hear it, you think about it and then you plunge, and you start actually, if it stands up to the test of rigorous analysis, once you’ve heard correctly, you’ve analyzed in depth, you’ve put it to the test, the best possible test you can, you give every ounce of your intelligence to this and if it stands up to the most critical analysis then, don’t just teach it and write a book about it for heaven’s sakes, view it, view reality. Let your own view be the middle way view, right. And once you’ve really deconstructed your reification of yourself, your mind and all objects, all appearances to the mind, then you’re introduced to the Dzogchen view, the view of the Great Perfection, right. That’s pointing out instructions. But you may, you may be a great scholar. You may study the seven treasures of Longchenpa. You may study all the five treatises of Dudjom Lingpa. You may study Longchenpa and so forth and so on. You know, many other treatises [ Alan names two other Tibetan treatises] and so forth and so on. You may become very knowledgeable by studying extensively of the view and some of the teachers I’ve studied with like Khenpo Namdrol, amazing erudition, astonishing erudition, you know, tremendously erudite in terms of his knowledge of the view and his clarity with which he expresses, he’s brilliant, right. But once you’ve been introduced to the view, whether it was by very concise pointing instructions or whether it was by much more elaborate presentation, then once you cut through, very much like going from a non lucid dream and having the discontinuity over to shifting and viewing the same dream now from the perspective of lucidity. From the perspective of being awake. Once you’ve shifted that, you’ve had that kind of shift of the axis so that you’re viewing the whole of reality now from the perspective of rigpa, now you have the view. That’s the Dzogchen view. To be viewing reality from the perspective of rigpa, that’s the Dzogchen view. And once you’re viewing there, then your practice now becomes really really simple. The great adepts they say now dispense with the nine fold activity. Dispense with all activities of nine kinds of the body speech and mind. And that’s coarse, medium and subtle. Dispense with all activity, all the activities that you embrace as a sentient being. Recitations, stage of generation, mantras, prostrations, let alone chit chat, idle gossip and all of that, let alone mind wandering. There’s coarse, medium, and even subtle like doing tummo [practice], doing stage of completion practice, dispense with all of it. Do not activate yourself in any way as a sentient being. Because that’s incompatible with viewing reality from the perspective of dharmakaya. And from this perspective there’s nothing to achieve. So don’t strive. If you’re viewing reality from the perspective of dharmakaya there’s nothing to strive for, you’re already it. So just get familiar with that. Rest there, go deeper, deeper, deeper, now you’re ready for open presence, open monitoring, just resting being entirely open. Now you’re ready. You’re not a marmot. You’re a Buddha. And you’re viewing reality not from a marmot’s perspective but from dharmakaya perspective and then there’s nothing to do. Nothing to prefer, nothing to modify, there’s nothing to desire, there’s no effort, there’s no modification and there’s no doing. When you’re viewing reality from that perspective, your life has now become very simple. But until then there’s a fair amount to do. [laughter]

[1:11:44] You might consider conative intelligence, continue to go back to motivation, without which this all runs out of gas. 8 week retreats over, you watch you practice kind of get - oh I’m so busy, I’m so busy, I’m so busy, but those 8 weeks were really good. But now I’m so busy, busy, busy busy. That’s because you prioritize other things. That a real simple answer for that. You’re busy with other things rather than busy with dharma. Simple, so motivation is enormous. Go back to the four immeasurables, go back to the four greats, go back to bodhichitta. There’s motivation, there’s really deep motivation, that will keep you going. Whew. So this practice, this is straight from Padmasambhava, Natural Liberation, we’re probing into the nature of the agent. He said that may be enough. That practice we just did, that he said, for those who are gifted, those who with a little dust on their eyes, he said this may be sufficient to cut right through to rigpa, could be, right. If it’s not yet, then keep on practicing and you’ll get more and more gifted as you go. You know, it’s not just there are better people and worse people. They are more gifted because they’ve been practicing longer. Olaso. So let’s continue doing that throughout the course of the day.

Transcribed by KrissKringle Sprinkle

Revised by Rafael Carlos Giusti

Final edition by Cheri Langston

Discussion

Ask questions about this lecture on the Buddhism Stack Exchange or the Students of Alan Wallace Facebook Group. Please include this lecture’s URL when you post.